Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

In article <347BD20A.736B_at_agd.nsw.gov.au>, Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am_at_agd.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
>Joel Garry wrote:
>
>> Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am_at_agd.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
>>
>> > They claim they need row level locking because they all stupidly
>> > lock selected data for the duration of a transaction that may or may
>> > not utilmately do an update or insert. The changes to correct this sort
>> > of nonsense are trivial. Why they won't do the change is obvious. These
>> > programs cater to the lowest common denominator in database technology.
>> > Thus they don't have a real grasp of proper client/server methodology.
>>
>> I agree with the lcd problem, but the changes are not trivial. Can you say
>> Repeatable Read? It's like changing the newsgroup comp.databases.oracle to
>> a hierarchy - the change is trivial, but just try to implement it completely.
>> Coming up on a year, and people still post here.
>
> This depends on where you're reading and posting from. :-)

Yes, but the point is you have to deal with where everyone is reading and posting from.

> The solution that works for all cases (the lcd) is quite simple.
> The change may or may not be trivial depending on the complexity
> of the product. By complexity, I don't mean the schema design
> but the design of the programs that work with it. If they
> were well designed then the changes should be trivial.

Should be ain't is. :0

>
>-am

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry_at_eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the _at_#%*& DBA!